Skip to main content

Full text of "The Orange Quarter and the First French Settlers in South Carolina"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 

The South Carolina 
Historical and Genealogical 


VOL. XVIII. JULY, 1917 No. 3 


By Henry A. M. Smith 

The late Genl. Edward McCrady whose work published in 
1897 may be regarded as the latest authoritative history of the 
period, gives the following account of the first French settlers: 

"In the redistribution of the lots in old Charles Town, Richard 
"Batin, Jacques Jours, and Richard Deyos received town lots. 
"These are assumed to have been French Protestants, but upon 
"what authority is not known. In 1677 grants were made to 
"Jean Batton; in 1678 to Jean Bazant and Richard Gaillard. 
"These were the first Huguenots in Carolina of whom there is 
"record." 1 

McCrady gives as his authority for this, Howe's History of the 
Presbyterian Church in South Carolina, which was published in 
1870. Howe (vol. 1, p. 73) gives practically the same account as 
repeated by McCrady, adding to the supposed first French Hugue- 
nots, John Monke in 1682, and a grant " to Marie Batton wife of 
"Jean Batton (ci-devant Mary Fosteen)." 

On a later page (p. 101) Howe mentions as one of the probable 
French Huguenots to whom lots were granted in old Charles 

1 So: Ca: under the Proprietary Govt., 1670-1716, pp. 180-181. 



Town, James Jour (not Jacques Jours). He also adds to the list 
of French immigrants to whom early grants were given, Jean 
Bullon (not Batton) in 1677, to Lydia Barnott in 1678, to Pierre 
Bodit in 1678 and to Samuel Buttall in 1682. Howe does not 
give his authority but the writer surmises that he may have seen 
the MS. history of the Huguenots of South Carolina and their 
descendants compiled by the late Thomas Gaillard, who in 1832 
removed from South Carolina to Alabama. Mr. Gaillard seems to 
have done considerable research work (of a desultory kind) in 
the South Carolina records. Copious extracts from this MS. 
were published in the transactions of the Huguenot Society of 
South Carolina for 1897. Most of the names given by Howe and 
McCrady as early French grantees of lands are given by Mr. 

A close examination of the original records shows the assumption 
that these early grantees were French is probably a mistake. 

The three names given as persons to whom lots were awarded 
at the redistribution in old Charles Town are Richard Batin, 
Jacques Jours or James Jour, and Richard Deyos. A list of the 
persons to whom these lots were awarded will be found in the 
Collections of the Historical Society of S. C, vol. 5, p. 408, and also 
more exactly in the Journal of the Grand Council printed by the 
Historical Commission of S. C. in 1907 pp. 40-41. The most 
careful search reveals no Jacques Jours or James Jour, but one James 
Jones receives lot 14. Richard Battin receives lot 13, and Rich- 
ard Deyos lot 19. As to Richard Battin a person of that name 
came out to Carolina in August 1671 in the ship Blessing from 
England with a shipload of English and Irish emigrants, 2 who 
together with a fellow emigrant in the same ship, one William Loe, 
stole a quantity of chattels and ran away from the settlement, were 
captured, tried, and condemned to death, and reprieved only on 
the intercession of Lady Yeamans and the rest of the ladies of 
the colony; and in June 1673 Richard Battin, joiner, was for 
malicious scandal ordered to receive thirteen lashes on his naked 
back "well laid on. " 3 In 1677 a warrant for 100 acres is issued to 
Richard Batten and Rebecca (not Marie) his wife. 4 There is no 

2 Coll™ Hist: Soc: vol. 5, p. 329. 

3 Printed Journal of Grand Council, pp. 54, 55, 58. 

4 Printed Warrants, 1672, p. 147. 


reason then to infer that that Richard Batten or Battin was other 
than one of the first English emigrants. 

Richard Deyos or Dyas was a gunner on the ship Carolina 
on her very first trip to found the settlement in August 1669. 5 
In March 1670/71 he is mentioned as a seaman belonging to 
the Carolina, but as having property in the Province. 6 He 
arrived in the settlement in the very first fleet and brought with 
him or procured by June 1670 an indentured servant named 
Christopher Edwards 7 and in December 1672 received a warrant 
for 300 acres. 8 It is difficult to suppose at that time a seaman on 
an English vessel as an alien Frenchman. The suggestion of 
his being French is but a guess from the spelling of his name 
than which with regard to English names no guess can be more 
unsafe. The writer has been able to find no warrant or grant to 
any Jean Bullon, nor to Jean Batton, nor to Marie Batton ci- 
devant Mary Fosteen. Lydia Barnett received a warrant for 
100 acres on 7 Sept r . 1678 9 but that does not make her French 
more than Lidia Bassett to whom with her husband John Bassett 
a warrant for 140 acres was issued on 4 th September 1675 as having 
arrived in August 1672, or than Lydia Bezant to whom with 
her husband John Bezant a warrant for 140 acres issued on 7 th 
Sept r . 1678. The probability is (under the errors that distinguished 
the scribes of that date in the writing of personal names) that 
John and Lydia Barnett, Bassett, or Bezant, were the same two 
who arrived with the other English settlers in August 1672. 10 
No warrant or grant to "Jean" Bazant has been found by the 
writer. No "Pierre" Bodit appears. A warrant to "Peter" 
Bodit "one of y° freemen of this province" for 600 acres was 
issued 13 July 1678. 11 John Monk was an Englishman from 
Kingsclere 12 , and Samuel Buttall was also an Englishman from 
Battersea near London 13 . So that of all the names mentioned 

5 CoW" of the Hist: Soc: of S. C, vol 5, p. 141. 

6 Ibid, p. 300. 

7 Printed Journals of Grand Council, p. 34. 

8 Printed Warrants, 1672-1679, p. 55. 

9 Ibid, p. 175. 

10 Ibid, pp. 100, 101, 175, 178. 

11 Ibid, p. 167. 

12 S. C. Hist: and Gen: Mag: vol XIV, p. 139. 

13 Deed in possession of writer. 


by Tho" Gaillard, and by Howe, and McCrady after him, and by 
a number of "thesis" writers and pamphleteers after them, as 
presumedly French, there remains but one that can plausibly be 
supposed such: viz "Richard Gilliard" to whom a warrant was 
issued for 100 acres on 2 nd November 1678. 14 The Gaillard 
family who a few years later are found in South Carolina were 
undoubtedly French Protestants. The name in South Carolina 
has been pronounced "Gilyard" so that the name of Richard 
Gilliard is written in the record we have of the warrant, as the 
name is here pronounced. Richard however is not among the 
family names of the subsequent Gaillards. He may have been 
of a family originally French but already anglicised for generations. 
The writer has found nothing more of him on the record than this 
entry of a warrant issued for 100 acres to him. Assuming that 
he was French he is the only name the writer has found on the 
record prior to 1680 that may with any certainty be classed as 
such. There are other names of uncertain class. Bevin, Allouron, 
and Shugeron to whom warrants are issued might be supposed to 
have a French flavour yet they are all apparently Irish, (viz 
"Teigue" Shugeron) who came out with Capt Florence O 'Sullivan 
in the first fleet in 1670. 16 There are other names to whom war- 
rants were issued prior to 1680 which at first sight the writer 
thought might be French viz Davith Dupeth and Enoch Dupis 
in 1677, Vera Aurora Peper in 1678, and Deoniz Brodie in 1679, 14 
or M'Ohohj (save that his name was Patrick) in 1679," together 
with several others, but none of them seem to "connect up" with 
the later French settlers and the writer's own conclusion is that 
the most reasonable inference is that they were all part of the Eng- 
lish, Irish, Bermudian, Barbadian first settlement of the Province. 
Considering this and the subsequent expressions in the Statutes 
and other records concerning the advent of French and other alien 
settlers it would appear to be safe to infer that there were no 
French settlers in the Province prior to 1680. 
In 1680 came the first definite French immigration, about which 

14 Printed Warrants, 1672-1679, p. 186. 

16 Ibid, p. 104. 

16 Ibid, pp. 152, 179, 203. 

» Ibid, p. 205. 


also a curious error (in an immaterial point) has found currency. 
If an error, especially an historical or genealogical error, once 
creeps into print it seems impossible ever to obliterate it. It 
continues to crop up again and again, each new repetition serving 
as an additional basis or "authority." The historian George 
Chalmers in his Political Annals of the United Colonies published 
in London in 1780 stated that King Charles II in April 1679 
ordered two small vessels to transport at his expense several 
foreign protestants to Carolina. Following Chalmers, David 
Ramsay in, his History of South Carolina makes the same state- 
ment, as does Bancroft, and W m Gilmore Simms. Howe in his 
History of the Presbyterian Church in S. C. published in 1870 states 
(on p. 73) "his majesty Charles II gave orders for fitting out two 
"suitable ships for their conveyance. One of these vessels was 
"the frigate Richmond which arrived in 1680 bringing out forty- 
"five French refugees.- Charles himself bore the expense of their 
"transportation. A more considerable number soon followed in 
"another vessel, also at the expense of government." 

General M°Crady follows Howe with some amplification. The 
error referred to in these accounts is that the French emigrants 
referred to came in two vessels, a considerable number following 
those, who first come over in the frigate Richmond. From the 
original material now available we find the true account to be as 

On 10 Febry 1679 Mons r Ren6 Petit petitioned his Majesty 
Charles II that four score Protestant families skilled in the manu- 
facture of silks, oils, wines, &c. be transported to Carolina in 
two of his Majesty's small ships and £2000 be advanced for this 
purpose to be reimbursed from the receipts from the customs on 
the commodities of that plantation. In March 1679 an additional 
petition was presented from Rene Petit and Jacob Guerard setting 
out further reasons and praying despatch. Gen 1 . M c Crady gives 
this last name as "Grinard" a mistake due to the misspelling in 
the abstract given in Vol. 1 p. 102 of the Collections of the Histori- 
cal Society ofS. C, of the petition which he refers to as his authority, 
and where the name is given as Grinard. It was without question 
Guerard. Before action on these petitions the Board of Lords 
of Trade and Plantations before whom the petitions were considered 
referred them to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina for their con- 


sent. On 6 March 1679 the Lords Proprietors informed the Board 
that at an outlay of some £17000. to £18000. they had brought 
the Colony to so prosperous a condition that for years men of 
estates had gone there on their own account, but admit that both 
their interest and his Majesty's will be served by the coming of 
these foreigners to Carolina and the attraction their success will 
hold out to other foreigners and Protestants. That these "poor 
gentlemen" are fit objects of the King's goodness and that the 
outlay will be profitable. 

Two things are to be noticed in this communication of the Lords 
Proprietors. 1 st The coming of these "foreigners" to Carolina 
is spoken of as the first occasion of the kind, thus confirming the 
inference already drawn that no French came prior to this date, 
and 2 nd they are referred to as "poor gentlemen." 

On the same date (6 March) there are further "Humble pro- 
posals for Carolina" in the handwriting of Rene Petit to the effect 
that 50 or 60 foreign families (a fall from the first 80) are ready to 
ship in February 1680 and that his proposals are already agreed to 
by the Proprietors of Carolina. On 22 May 1679 the Board 
agreed to recommend the preparation of two ships to draw not 
more than twelve feet to transport the families — the families to 
victual themselves, and the King to be at no charge beyond main- 
taining the ships and their crews, and on 28 May it was so ordered, 
but nothing more seems to have been done until 17 October 1679 
when Rene Petit the Kings agent at Rouen and Jacob Guerard 
Gentleman of Normandy petitioned that a certain number of the 
Protestant families already arrived in England may be shipped 
to Carolina on the Richmond frigate then about to go to Barbadbes 
and that a warrant for £2000. be made to the petitioners, one 
half to be received on arrival of the first batch of emigrants and 
the other half on arrival of the rest. On the 29 Octr this petition 
for the transport of several Protestant families to Carolina on the 
Richmond was granted. 

On the 17 Deer 1679 the Lords Proprietors write to the Governor 
and Council of Carolina at Ashley River that by the same ship 
that carried the letter several foreign Protestant families went to 
Carolina to settle. They were to have the quantities of land 
granted directed in a previous letter of 19 May 1679 viz: To 
each free person male or female 70 acres of land with 70 acres more 


for each manservant and 50 acres for each woman servant or 
manservant between the ages of 12 and 16. On expiration of 
their term of service each servant was to receive 60 acres. The 
Proprietors add in the letter that they have granted to Rene Petit 
and Jacob Guerard each a manor of 4000 acres to be passed to 
them as soon as desired. The letter is marked " Per the Richmond 
"frigate Capt: Dunbar commanding." 18 

The plan of sending two ships was changed and the ship Richmond 
alone made the transportation. Accompanying the Richmond 
on the voyage was M 1 Thomas Ash "Gent." who was the Clerk 
on board. On his return he wrote a sketch entitled "Carolina; 
"or a Description of the Present State of that Country and the 
"Natural Excellencies thereof," which was published in London 
in 1682. In this sketch he states that a production of silk was 
well calculated to succeed in the Province and "To make tryal 
" of its Success was the Intention of those French Protestant Pas- 
sengers transported thither in His Majesties Frigat the Rich- 
"mond being forty five, the half of a greater Number designed 
"for that place." 

The Statute enacted by the General Assembly of Carolina 1 
May 1691 19 declares that King Charles "was pleased in the yeare 
"one thousand six hundred and eighty for the encouragement of 
"a Manufacture of silk oyle and wine to send in one of his owne 
"shipps of Wjarr several French Protestants into this Country, 
"to inhabitt and dwell in the same and their posterity after them." 

From all which it may be inferred: 

1 — That the French immigrants in 1680 came in but one ship; 
the Richmond. 

2 — That they numbered in all but forty five. 

3 — That they were the first French to arrive in the colony and 
were brought to forward the colony's agriculture. The late M r . 
Thomas Gaillard whose work on the French Huguenots of South 
Carolina has been already referred to; discussing this subject of 
the transportation in two vessels or one, refers to the statement 
as to two vessels in 1679 as first made by Chalmers and repeated 

18 Calendar of State Papers Am: and West Indies: vol: for 1677-1680, pp. 
328, 336, 337, 340, 351, 360, 364, 428, 435, 455. London MSS. in Off: Hist: 
Com., vol 1, pp. 62-79. 

19 Stats at large, vol. 2, p. 58. 


in Bancroft and Simms, and concludes that finding no better 
authority than Chalmers for the statement he prefers the un- 
questionable authority of the Statute of 1691 that the trans- 
portation was made in 1680 in one vessel only. 20 The records in 
the State Paper Office in London to which M r . Gaillard did not 
have access but which are now available show that his conclusion 
on this point was correct. 

M r . Gaillard also refers to the supposed early grants to French 
immigrants prior to 1680 already herein referred to and states 
"there is also on record an order to lay out to John Batton 70 
"acres of land for Mary Batton his wife ci devant femme de 
"Fostien, she having arrived in May 1681. Order dated Sep- 
tember 8 th 1683. " 21 

Reference however to the original record of the order of 18 th 
(not 8 th ) September 1683 shows that there was to be "laid out 
"unto John Barton" (not Batton) "seaventy acres of land for 
"Mary his wife formerly knowne by the name of Mary Tosteen 
"arriving in May Annq: Dni 1681" — the cidevant femme de 
"Fostien" not appearing on the record. 

These forty five in the ship Richmond having been the first 
French to arrive the writer has for years endeavoured to ascertain 
their names and place of settlement in the Province. There is 
no known list of the forty five in existence. None appears among 
the State papers from London, and the books of entry in which 
their names were registered when they came to the colony have 
apparently been all destroyed. 

The sources of information for the names of the earliest French 
settlers are: 

First. The names of persons to whom warrants for land were 
issued, or to whom actual grants were made. The list of grants 
■we now have of that early period seems imperfect with a number 
of omissions. How many it is impossible to say. So too the 
warrant books containing the record of warrants issued omit the 
names of persons, to whom it is ascertained from the grants, that 
warrants must have been issued. The extent of these omissions 
is also unknown — probably not great. In determining from the 

*° Transactions Huguenot Society of S. C. for 1897, p. 10. 
"Ibid, p. 1.1. 


name the nationality of the nominee, mistakes are apt to be made 
unless the person can be "checked up" from other sources, and 
circumstances. Some names are in orders or instructions sent 
direct from the Proprietors to the Governor and Council and are not 
on the Provincial registers of grants or warrants. 

Second. The names contained in contemporaneous writings 
of which there are few, or mentioned in the recitals of boundaries 
in grants to other persons, or in the few remaining books of records 
of that date of wills and deeds of various kinds. 

Third. The names contained in the list known as the "St: 
Julien" or "Ravenel" list. This is a list of French and Swiss 
refugees in Carolina who desired to be naturalized. Its date by 
comparison of names with births has been fixed at about 1696. 
It was found among the papers of Henry de St: Julien of St Johns 
Berkley who died in 1768 or 1769 and was the youngest son of 
Pierre de St: Julien mentioned in the list. His papers came into 
the possession of M r . Daniel Ravenel of Wantoot and the list was 
first published in 1822 in the Southern Intelligencer a paper pub- 
lished in Charleston. It was republished in 1867 and again in 
pamphlet form by T. Gaillard Thomas M. D. in 1888; and in 
1897 in the Transactions of the Huguenot Society of S. C. for 
that year. This list contains (as numbered in this last publication) 
154 heads — so to say — of families. But there are a number of 
duplications in this list (about 28 according to the writer's count) 
which would reduce the names of heads of families to about 126. 
It is subdivided into 3 sublists, N°. 2 of which contains the names 
of French who belonged to the Church at Orange Quarter. 

Fourth. The list of names contained in the Act of the Provincial 
Assembly ratified 10 th March 1696/7 entitled "An Act for making 
" Aliens free of this Part of the Province and for Granting Liberty 
" of Conscience to all Protestants." 22 The Act contains a list of 
63 names of which 56 appear to be French; and of these 56 names 
36 are also included in the St: Julien list of persons who are "to 
"be" naturalized although the Act declares the 63 entitled to 
naturalization. The list of names in this Act is printed in alpha- 
betical order in the Transactions of the Huguenot Society before 
referred to, 23 but was badly proof read as it has several errors in it. 

22 Stats, at Large, Vol 2, p. 132. 
»p. 240. 


In the same number of the Transactions of the Huguenot Society 
there is given 24 another list of French names said to have been 
complied by M r . Thomas Gaillard of Mobile. This list although 
containing many French names is unworthy of reliance for any 
trustworthy historical or genealogical investigation. It is filled 
also with many names of persons known to have been English 
and even of Jews. It bears the evidence of wild guess and distorted 
inferences and is mentioned here only for the purpose of distinctly 
stating that it can not be included in any source for safe information 
concerning the names of French settlers. 

The great bulk of the French immigration was apparently 
after 1685 when the Edict of Nantes was revoked. Not all the 
refugees with French names were French, some of them were 
Swiss, and by no means all came as the result of religious persecu- 
tion. The Act of 1 May 1691 divides the Alien immigration 
into three classes: 

1. French Protestants who had been compelled to flee to 

2. The French Protestants whom King Charles II had brought 
over in 1680 for the encouragement of the manufacture of silk 
oil and wine. 

3. Persons born in Switzerland who of late years had settled 
in the Province. 

The Act of 10 March 1696/7 recites that, "Whereas Prosecution 
"for Religion hath forced, some Aliens and trade and the fer- 
"tility of this Colony has encouraged others to resort to this 
Colony" &c. 

From all this we are to pick out the names of the first French 
immigrants viz: of those who came over on the ship Richmond, 

The writer for years had an impression that those who came 
over on the Richmond were those who settled at Orange Quarter 
in what was subsequently the Parish of St: Denis. The reason 
for this supposition was that these immigrants were brought out 
for the very purpose of agricultural pursuits and the production 
of silk oil and wine; and that Samuel Wilson who wrote "An 
"Account of the Province of Carolina" published in 1682 26 refers 
to the French settlement viz: "The Countrey hath gently rising 

"Pp. 47 to 52. 

* Carroll's Hist: Coll™ of S. C, vol 2, p. 19. 


"Hills of fertile sand proper for Wines and further from the Sea 
"Rock and gravel, on which very good grapes grow naturally, 
"ripen well, and together, and very lushious in Taste, insomuch, 
"that the French Protestants who are there and skilled in wine 
"do no way doubt of producing great quantitys, and very good" 

The French Protestants who "are there" means probably 
settled there. 

A Samuel Wilson — possibly the author of the "Account" — 
obtained in 1684 a warrant, followed in 1688 by a grant, of 1000 
acres on the Cooper River and the Creek afterwards known as 
French Quarter creek, which grant included what might have 
been called "a gently rising Hill" viz Ahagan Bluff, 26 and this in 
a loose indefinite way seemed to point to that section as the locality 
of the French settlement referred to by Wilson in 1682. 

Subsequent investigation and a careful comparison of the names 
of the French settlers in that locality with the names of such as 
apparently came out on the Richmond has satisfied the writer 
that this impression of his was erroneous. 

It has been shown that Jacob Guerard was with Rene Petit 
the petitioners for the transportation of those brought over on 
the Richmond, and that each Gu6rard and Petit were to receive 
a grant for 4000 acres. 

On 16 Nov r 1680 a warrant was issued to lay out to Jacob 
Guerard 4000 acres. 27 On the 18 th of the succeeding February 
(1680/81) another warrant is issued to Jacob Guerard (spelled 
Garrard) in right of himself and wife for 560 acres due for the 
arrival of six servants viz Peter Oliver, Solomon Bremmer, Charles 
Fromagett, John Carier, Anna Lafelleine, and Mary Fortress. 28 

On 24 April 1681 a warrant was issued to Peter Jacob Guerard 
(spelled Gerrard) Isack Guerard, John Guerard, Joseph Guerard, 
Margaret Guerard, and Elizabeth Guerard for 420 acres. 29 there 
is also a grant 18 Febry 1680 to M rs Margret Petit for 70 acres. 80 
The record does not show if she had any connection with Rene 
Petit. The Richmond appears to have sailed from England about 

26 Proprietary Grants, vol. 38, p. 69. 
"Printed Warrants, 1680-1692, p. 26. 
"Ibid, p. 31. 
59 Ibid, p. 39. 
80 Ibid, p. 29. 


the end of December 1679 or the early part of January 1680. 
When she arrived in Carolina the writer has not been able to find 
noted on the record. It may be guessed at sometime in the Spring 
of 1680 unless she was compelled by stress of weather or other 
reasons to stop on the way. The letter of the Proprietors to lay 
out 4000 acres to Jacob Gu6rard which went by the Richmond 
was dated 17 Deer 1679 yet the warrant was not issued in Carolina 
until November 1680 so the vessel arrived sometime between those 
dates. On 1 November 1683 a warrant for 350 acres is issued to 
" Monsieur de la plane" (really Abraham Fleury de la Pleine) for 
himself and four servants arriving in April 1680 ; 31 and on 25 Feb- 
ruary 1683/4 a warrant is issued to "Mouns r Abraham de la plaine" 
for 200 acres due to him for the arrival of Lewis, Lucy, Sharto, 
and Gabriel Te boo (Thibou) ; 32 while on 1 November 1683 a war- 
rant is issued to Lewis Thibou for 210 acres due for himself and 
two servants arriving in April 1680 r 33 and on 25 February 1683/4 
a warrant for 210 acres is issued to James Varine for the arrival of 
himself his wife and son on the 29 April 1680. 34 

Considering the connection between the names of Guerard and 
Petit with the immigrants on the Richmond, and the apparent 
coincidence of the dates of arrival of the other names mentioned 
with the probable date of arrival of the Richmond, the names 
mentioned are as close as the writer has been able to get to the 
probable names of the French Protestant passengers on that 
vessel. There were 7 Guerards: add Peter Olivier, Solomon 
Bremar and (according to the St Julien list) his wife Marie, 
Charles Fromagett, Jean Carriere, Anna Lafelleine and Mary 
Fortress (Marie Fougeraut?) 7 more making 14. Then Margaret 
Petit, Abraham Fleury with (according to the St Julien list) 
his daughter and son in law, and his brother Isaac Fleury, Louis 
Thibou, his wife (or daughter?) Charlotte (Sharto) and Louis 
Lucy and Gabrielle his children, Jacques Varin his wife and son 
13 more or 27 in all. The same guess might apply to John 
Calley S r John Calley J r Walter Canon and Edward Musson 
(Mouzon?) to whom warrants were issued, for the first three on 

31 Ibid, p. 107. 

32 Ibid, p. 123. 

33 Ibid, p. 138. 

34 Ibid, p. 121. 


5 August 1680, and for Musson on 25 April 1681, S6 if only it could 
be safely inferred that they were French. 

If the inference that these are persons who came on the ship 
Richmond be plausible then it would seem to dispose of the theory 
that the Orange Quarter was settled by the persons transported 
on that ship for not one of these names except that of Solomon 
Bremar is found as borne by the first French grantees of land in 
that quarter. 

The first French name found by the writer in the vicinity of the 
Orange Quarter is that of Pierre Foure. This name does not 
appear on either the St Julien list nor the Act of 1696: nor has the 
writer ever found any record of any warrant or grant issued to him. 
As stated in the account of Pompion Hill plantation published in 
this Magazine, Vol. XVIII, p. 18, his name is found on the early 
map of Carolina published in 1715 and his ownership is shown by 
the certificate of the late Daniel Ravenel that he had seen the grant 
to him with the transfer from him to Pierre St Julien de Malacare. 
St Julien was in possession in 1687, for according to the certificate 
of the Rev: M r Trouillard, the marriage of his daughter to Rene 
Ravenel was in that year celebrated at Pompion Hill. Nicholas 
de Longuemare and Josias du Pre were present at the wedding 
as the friends and witnesses of Ravenel. Nicholas de Longuemare 
on the 5 Jany 1685 (1686) had received a warrant for 100 acres 
for which he afterwards received a grant near Foure 's grant, and 
Josias du Pre also later received a grant adjacent to de Longue- 
mare. The St: Julien list gives as the French belonging to the 
Church at the Orange Quarter who desired naturalization: 

Anthoine Poitevin and his wife. 
Daniel Trezevant and his wife 
Pierre Dutartre and his wife 
Anthoine Poitevin J r and his wife 
Pierre Poitevin 
Joseph Marboeuf 
Jean Aunant and wife 
Solomon Bremar and wife 
Nicholas Bouchet and wife 
Daniel Trezevant J r 

nearly all of whom seem by the list to have been closely connected 
by blood or intermarriage. The compiler of the St: Julien list 

35 Ibid, pp. 15, 16, 17, 35. 



or of that subdivision which contains the list of those at the Orange 
Quarter states at the foot that there were others whom he had not 
put down but who had been written down by the Committee, as 
"M r . Vidot" and some others. The earliest French name found 
in the locality was as we have seen Pierre Foure who transferred 
to Pierre St Julien prior to 1687. There are a number of grants 
in the vicinity to ojthers than French settlers both prior and sub- 
sequent to that date and the majority of settlers even in the 
"Quarter" were not French, but the following are the French 
settlers in order of date of grant that the writer has found on the 

Nicholas de Longuemare 

Peter du Tartre 

Louis Juin 

Abel Bochet 

James de Bordeaux 

Nicholas Bochet 

George Juin 

Peter Videau 

Humphrey Torquet 

John Aunant 

Josias du Pr6 

Daniel Trezevant 

Paul Torquet 

Peter Poitevin 

Benjamin Simons 

Alexander de la Motte 

John Carteau 

John Petineau 

Philip Normand 

James Belin 

Matthew Tullada (French ?) 

Solomon Bremar 

Daniel Gobel (French ?) 

Louis Mouzon 

Louis du Tarque 

Joseph Marboeuf 

Anthony Bonneau 

Jacob Lapotre 

Daniel Brabant 

Peter Caretonau 

Jeremiah Varine 




5Jan'y 1685 
28Sept r 1696 
30 Oct r 

26 July 1697 

9 Sept 1696 

26 " 1697 

6 March 1696/7 
28 May 1696 

25 March 1698 

12 May 1702 

4 March 1702 
3Jany 1701/02 

23 Aug 1704 
23 Oct r 1697 

5 Jany 1704 
14 April 1705 

12 June 1708 

6 July 

16Mch 1708/9 

14 Dec r 1708 

31 July 1711 


17 Mch 1688/9 
28 Oct r 1696 
12 Dec* " 
1 Sept r 1697 

Ct tt 

17 Aug. 1700 

11 Jany " 

« Ct It 

12 May 1703 

18 Sept' " 

18 July 1703 

6 May 1704 

5 " 

a tt a 

6 July " 

5 May " 
tt it tt 

15 Sept r 1705 

it it ic 

14 May 1707 
3 March 1708/9 
19 May 1709 

1 June " 

tt tt tt 

24 Nov r " 
14 April 1710 
27 June 1711 


Many of these persons were in the Province and were residents in 
the Orange Quarter before the apparent dates of these warrants. 
They seem to have gone into possession under some authority, 
leave, or agreement, prior to receiving warrants and grants. 
These names however constitute so far as the writer has been able 
to ascertain the names of the French settlers of that locality up 
to say 1711. They seem all to have settled there posterior to 1685 
and if the date of settlement was the date of arrival then they 
could none have been the immigrants brought over by the 

The name "Orange Quarter" as applied to the settlement the 
writer first finds in the heading of one of the sublists of the St 
Julien list: viz; "Liste des noms des Fransioise qui se recuille 
"en l'Eglize du Cartie d 'Orange." In the Church Act of 1706 
a parish is provided for " in the Orange Quarter for the use of the 
" French Settlement there which shall be called by the name of 
"the parish of St: Dennis." 

In the additional Act of 1708 it is again referred to in the same 
language, and in the Act of 1712 provision is made for the support 
of a "Minister of the parish of St: Dennis for the French settle- 
"ment in Orange Quarter." By the tax Act of 1715 assessors 
or "enquirers" are appointed "for the parish of St: Dennis or 
"Orange Quarter, M r . Peter Videau, M r . Josiah Dupree and M r . 
"Peter Poitvin." 

How it acquired the name "Orange" Quarter the writer has 
never been able definitely to ascertain. 

Howe in his History of the Presbyterian Church in South Carolina 
published in 1870 states that it has been conjectured that the name 
was derived from the principality of Orange in the province of 
Avignon which at the period of the revocation belonged to William 
Prince of Orange afterwards King of England. He gives no author- 
ity for this conjecture. Shipp in his History of Methodism in 
South Carolina published in 1883 makes the same statement save 
that he makes it positively and leaves out the conjecture. M°- 
Crady in his work published in 1897 follows Howe, quoting him 
as his authority. It may be remarked that Orange was originally 
an independent principality and not a part of the County or City 
of Avignon, which in turn was not a province so called, and that 
it did not belong to William at the period of the revocation of the 


Edict of Nantes. He held the title of Prince of Orange but the 
principality outside of his personal estates had been annexed to 
the Crown of France. Not a single immigrant in the St: Julien 
list is entered as from Avignon, Orange, or the adjoining Comtat 
Venaissin, although two or three are stated as from Languedoc. 
The French settlers seem to have gone to the Orange Quarter 
between 1685 and 1696. William when invited over to England 
in 1688 was generally known as the Prince of Orange and not by 
the Dutch title of Stadtholder. It may be the section was called 
the Orange Quarter in compliment to his title. It is as Howe says 
a mere conjecture. 

On Herman Moll's map of 1715 the section is denominated 
"St: Thomas Parish with y e French Settlement at Orange Quarter 
"called St: Denis." 

It does not seem to have retained the name Orange Quarter long 
after 1715. The name "French" Quarter seems to have super- 
seded "Orange" and the creek from Cooper river through this 
settlement first known by the Indian name of Wisboo, or 
Wis-bOo-e creek, and then as Lynch 's. creek, acquired the name of 
French Quarter creek which it still retains. In the mouths of 
the negro inhabitants of the section it has been now further altered 
from "French" to "Fresh" Quarter creek. The Orange Quarter 
roughly speaking covered the area bounded Northwardly by the 
grants to Cassique John Ashby, Eastwardly by the settlements 
beyond the headwaters of the creek, Southwardly by the English 
settlements on the Cooper river and Westwardly by the Eastern 
Branch of Cooper river. The grants to the French settlers lay 
thickly around the headwaters of Wisboo Creek. 

The number of French settlers on the Eastern Branch of Cooper 
river i. e. at the Orange Quarter was given by Peter Girard a 
merchant in Charles Town as 101 in March 1698/9. Allowing 
five persons to each family (an estimate probably excessive at 
that date) it would give about twenty families which roughly 
speaking agrees with the then settlers as inferred from the data 
to which reference has already been made. 

They prohably had some church or congregational organization 
or meeting, for the St Julien sublist is of persons who attend the 
church in that quarter. That they had a Church edifice erected 
is not clear. There is on record a will of Caesar Moze dated 20 


June 1687 s6 and probated 7 of July 1687, between which dates he 
must have died. By this will he devised to Nicholas Mayrant 
with whom he was then living "the plantation in which we are 
"jointly interested situated on the Eastern Branch of the T of 
"Cooper river" and bequeathed £37 sterling to the church of 
the French Protestant "refugees in this country of Carolina to be 
"used for the construction of a temple or place of assembly for 
"the said Protestant refugees which shall be built at the place 
" most conveniently near and in the vicinity of the said plantation 
"in which the said M r . Mayrant and myself are interested." 

The writer has not been able to locate the plantation on the 
Eastern Branch of the Cooper river in which according to Moze 
Mayrant and himself were jointly interested. He has found 
neither warrant nor grant to either of them of that date for a tract 
of land in that locality. The will shows however that no church 
building had yet been erected and uses the word church 
"Eglise" in the sense of "congregation" not of edifice. 
Curiously enough M r . Thomas Gaillard in the extract from his 
work published by the Huguenot Society says that the will of 
Caesar Moz6 determines the fact that a congregation of French 
Protestants was in existence in Charleston in 1687 because he be- 
queaths to the church of the French Protestant refugees in Charles- 
ton! £37, whereas the bequest is plainly to the congregation on 
the Eastern Branch of Cooper River. So too the committee of 
that Society in its paper on the French Huguenots of South Carolina 
(prepared it is believed by the late D r . Gabriel E. Manigault) 
referring to the church in the Orange Quarter, says it may be 
inferred from the bequest of Caesar Moze that a house of public 
worship was erected in that quarter about the year 1690 thirteen 
years before the first Episcopal Church at Pompion Hill. But 
the will of Caesar Moze shows only that he made the bequest 
for a church edifice to be built and the amount of the bequest 
£37. is hardly evidence that with it alone any sufficient building 
could be, and of course none that any such actually was, con- 
structed. These forced inferences all proceed from the straining 
that has swayed sectarian writers and pamphleteers to show that 
some particular faith or "church" had precedence in its organiza- 

36 Of: Hist: Com": Will Book, p. 283. 


tion and construction on the soil of Carolina. An amusing illustra- 
tion of this is the "myth" of Michael Loving. 

Michael Loving or Lovering was one of several servants brought 
into the Province by Capt: John Coming in August 167 1. 37 Two 
other servants brought over at the same time by Capt: Coming 
were John Chambers and Philip Orrill. 38 These three were on 
the 4 th June 1672 brought by their Mistress M ra . Affera Coming 
before the Grand Council for disobedience, Philip Orrill in especial 
having threatened to upset the boat in which she was, with other 
threats. After trial the Grand Council ordered Orrill to be tied 
to a tree and to receive 21 lashes on his naked back, and the other 
two admonished under pain of "condigne punishment" to render 
more dutiful obedience to the commands of their mistress. 39 On 
the 3 d March 1681/2 a warrant was issued to lay out to Michael 
Loving a Town lot in Charles Town; 40 and this was followed by 
a grant dated 6 March 1681/2 to Michael Lovinge of Town lot 
N° 65. 41 Thereafter on 24 Novr 1684 Michael Lovinge con- 
veyed lot N° 65 to Arthur Middleton, after whose death his widow 
to whom he had devised the lot and who had intermarried with 
Ralph Izard conveyed this lot to James Nicholls "for the use of 
"the Commonality of the French Church in Charles Town." 42 
No church building seems to have been built on this lot for some 
years for in 1701 the members of the French Huguenot congrega- 
tion in Charles Town received from the Proprietors the grant of 
two lots N os 92 and 93 on which to build a church. The warrant 
for these lots had been issued to J. F. Gignilliat and Stephen 
Douxsaint "for y 8 building of a Church in behalf e of y e ffrench 
"Protestants of this Province" as early as 9 Deer 1686 but no 
grant was issued until 14 Nov r 1701 when it was issued to Henry 
Noble and Peter Buretell for the use of the French Protestants 
and the inference from the language of the grant would seem 
that they had as yet no church building constructed in Charleston. 43 

"Printed Warrants, 1672-1679, p. 45. 


»• Printed Journal Grand Council, 1671-1680, p. 33. 

«° Printed Warrants, 1680-1692, p. 66. 

41 Grants, vol. 38, p. 60. 

« Off: Hist: Com r : Bk. Grants Sales, etc., 1704-1708, p. 250. 

« Ibid, p. 252. 


In 1725 someone compiled a list of the lots in Charles Town 
with the dates of the grants and on the line of lot 65 granted 
March 6 th 1681 to Mich 1 Loveing is written in the margin " (fr ch . 
ch ch ), meaning evidently that that was the lot on which the French 
Church then stood. A complete copy of this list has been pub- 
lished in this Magazine.** The same or some other person seems 
at about the same time to have made the same annotation of 
"ffrench church" on the margin of the record of the grant — prob- 
ably when he examined the record to make his list. 

In 1886 there was published in the Charleston Year Book for 
the year 1885 an account of the Huguenot Church in Charleston 
the authorship of which has always been attributed to the Jate 
Rev. C. S. Vedder the then minister of that church. 

In this the guess is made that Michael Loving was probably a 
French Huguenot whose true name was "Lovell" and that the 
marginal reference of "ffrench church" on the record of the grant 
and of "fr ch ch ch " on the margin of the list "seems to compel the 
conclusion that "it Was given for the sacred purpose to which it 
"appears to have been ever since and is now devoted:" and that 
it is scarcely possible to doubt that the Huguenot Colonists of 
Charleston built their first sanctuary early in the year 1681 on the 
site where the beautiful church of their descendants now stands. 
The mere historian cannot but infer that no French church could 
have been built in 1681 on the lot granted to M ra . Comings' 
disobedient servant and subsequently owned by Arthur Middleton 
and Ralph Izard both church of England men, and not trans- 
ferred to the French congregation until 1687, in the face also of 
the most plausible inference from the record being that no French 
Huguenot Church Building was constructed in Charleston until 
after 1701. Nevertheless since D r . Vedders history of the church 
his statement has been repeated and referred to as established 
history until it is now perhaps hopeless to attempt to correct it. 
The same straining after priority of church organization appears in 
the account of the New England congregational settlement on 
Ashley River the historians of which have asserted that the commun- 
ion celebrated by those settlers in February 1696 at their first serv- 
ices was the first sacrament of the Lord's Supper ever celebrated 
in Carolina. 45 

« Vol. IX, p. 16. 

45 S. C. Hist: and Gen: Mag., vol. VI, pp. 66, 69. 


The writer has delved for many years in the records of the 
early settlers of Carolina and gives" the following as his conclusion 
on the question of who "built the first church." He admits this 
suggestion is worth only so much as its merit, and logical prob- 
ability will justify, and admits further that any day some more 
careful investigator may unearth some buried record that will 
put his theory to flight. 

When the first settlers came they were more concerned with the 
affairs of protection from the elements and nourishment for the 
body, than with the construction of church buildings. Their 
first religious meetings (in good weather at least) were probably 
in the open, under the shelter of some umbrageous oak as was the 
case at old Dorchester. 46 As soon as they had roofs to shelter 
them their religious meetings were probably at their homes, at 
different houses in succession. 

The English were the first settlers. They had most people and 
most money and more than that they had the reins of government 
and the power of taxation. Every plan of a contemplated town 
had a place designated for the building of a church meaning there- 
by a church of the church of England. Culpepers plan of old 
Charles Town or Albemarle Point designates a place for such a 
church and apparently one was built there probably a humble 
structure of logs in the true original colonial style. At Oyster 
Point, new Charles Town, an early church of St. Philip was built 
where St. Michael now stands. The others, "sects" or "faiths" 
followed the same course. Huguenots, Congregationalists, Baptists, 
Quakers, as soon as they became numerous enough to need, and 
wealthy enough to build, a church building for use, instead of 
using the houses of the members, they did so. Guessing in the 
dark the writer would say the Congregationalists followed close 
after the Church of England, then the Huguenots, then the Baptists 
and then the Quakers. 

So it was with the French settlers at Orange Quarter. They 
probably held services at one of the dwellings of the members of 
the congregation; perhaps at different dwellings in turn. 

The only notice of the church at Orange Quarter at all con- 
temporaneous, the writer has found, is that given by D r . Humphrey 
in his account of the Missionaries sent to South Carolina by the 

46 Hist: and Gen: Mag: of S. C, vol. VI, p. 69. 


Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts pub- 
lished in 1730. 47 

He states that at the time of the division of the country into 
parishes (i.e. 1706) the Orange Quarter was part of St. Thomas' 
Parish. That the major part of the French settlement usually 
met together in a small church of their own where they generally 
made a full congregation when they had a French Minister amongst 
them: that they made application to the Assembly of the Province 
to be made into a parish and to have some public allowance for 
a minister, episcopally ordained, who should use the liturgy of 
the Church of England and preach to them in French. Accord- 
ingly they were incorporated by the name of the Parish of St. 
Denis. That they have now a good church built about the same 
time as the Parish Church of St. Thomas. 

This petition to the Assembly was probably made about 1706 
when the Parish of St. Denis was created. When the small church 
referred to by D r . Humphrey was built is not stated. As the 
only Minister they had had at that time was M r . Le Pierre who 
seems to have been "episcopally ordained" it is possible this small 
church was built for the use of the French congregation about 
the same time as the Chapel at Pompion Hill say 1703. The 
Parish Church of St. Thomas was commenced in 1707 and finished 
in 1708. About the same time a new church building was con- 
structed for the French speaking members of the parish. The 
service was according to the liturgy of the English church, the 
prayer book used being a French translation of the Book of Com- 
mon Prayers and the Minister being one "episcopally ordained." 
This continued until 1768 when there being no longer any occasion 
for a separate French service the use of the church was discontinued. 
The church building was probably of wood. At any rate it has 
so completely disappeared physically and traditionally that it 
was only with great difficulty and after long research that its 
approximate site could be located where it is indicated on the map 
of the plantation in St. Thomas on the Eastern Branch of the 
Cooper River published in the January 1917 number of this 
Why this parish was given the name of St. Denis is matter of 

« Carroll's Hist: Coll™, vol. 2, p. 538. 


conjecture. Howe states that the name was supposed to com- 
memorate the battle field of St. Denis in the vicinity of Paris 
which was the scene of a memorable encounter in 1567 between the 
Catholic forces commanded by Montmorency and the Huguenots 
led by Admiral Coligny and the Prince of Conde, in which Mont- 
morency was slain. His conjecture is again repeated by Shipp 
and McCrady but it is scarcely plausible. The encounter at St. 
Denis was really only a small incident which terminated to the 
disadvantage of the Huguenots although Montmorency received 
the wound of which he died. 

If they had desired to record a victory for their arms they would 
most naturally have turned to the battle of Ivry. 

The Presbyterians and French Huguenots do not seem to have 
given the names of Saints to their churches. The name of St. 
Denis was probably conferred by the Church of England Assembly 
to whom the application had been made and who created the 
Parish. The patron Saint of France was St. Denis and in giving 
a Saint's name to a French parish it was not unnatural to select 
his name. It is a case however of pure conjecture. 

The number of French settlers in the Parish of St. Thomas 
including St. Denis as a whole was much less than the number of 
English settlers. The list of early grantees shows a great pre- 
ponderance of English, the latter being well sandwiched in, even 
on the waters of the French Quarter Creek. In fact the entire 
French settlement in South Carolina bore numerically a very 
small proportion to the entire population. They settled to any 
extent in but four places outside of Charles Town. A very small 
settlement at the head of Goose Creek; a small settlement on and 
near Biggon Swamp in St. John's Berkley; the settlement at Orange 
Quarter, another settlement on the Santee in the neighborhood of 
French Jamestown. The entire number of French persons in 
the Province in March 1698-1699 as given by Peter Girard a 
merchant in Charles Town and himself a French immigrant was 
438. 48 The entire white population at the same period is estimated 
at 5500. 49 Not an estimate based on any satisfactory data. 
If correct however the French settlers then formed less than ten 
per cent of the total white population. After that date the 

48 Rivers' Hist: Sketch of S. C, p. 447. 

48 McCrady, 5. C. under the Proprietary Government, pp. 338, 722. 


Trench accessions were apparently proportionately few while the 
flood of English immigration flowed on increasingly. The parts 
of the country occupied by the French were substantially limited 
to a part of St. James Santee — that part known as French Santee — 
a small part of the Parish of St. Thomas a very small settlement 
on St. James Goose Creek and a small settlement in St. John's 
Berkley, and their occupation as a rule continued to be re- 
stricted to those localities although a few individuals went 
elsewhere in the other parishes. The other low country parishes 
covering the great bulk of the low country viz. All Saints on 
Waccamaw, Prince Fredericks, Prince George's, St. Stephens, 
Christ Church, St. James Goose Creek, St. George Dorchester, 
St. Andrews, St. John's Colleton, St. Pauls, St. Bartholomew, and 
all of Beaufort (then Granville) County were almost exclusively 
English with also the larger portion of St. James Santee, St. 
Johns Berkley and St. Thomas. Allowing for all subsequent inter- 
marriages and female descents it would seem impossible to estimate 
the French element in the population of the sea coast counties 
of South Carolina at more than one or two per cent of the whole. 
This necessarily is very largely conjectural. In the remainder of 
the state say in two thirds of its area the French element is prac- 
tically nil. The small settlement at New Bordeaux in Abbeville 
County being too small to be noticeable. So far as the settlement 
at the Orange Quarter is concerned it has disappeared: the 
writer knows of not a single tract of land now held there by any 
one having a French name. 

The small holdings of the first French settlers at Orange Quarter 
proper, were comparatively soon absorbed in the larger estates 
but even as regards the large tracts along the Eastern Branch of 
the Cooper River and adjacent thereto which were held by the 
Hugers, the Manigaults, the Bonneaus,theLesesnes, the Laurens, 
but one small plantation, Campvere, is now owned by the bearer 
of a French name or even a descendant of the former owners, 
unless M r . Elias Cumbee the present owner of the North Hampton 
plantation be a descendant of Philip Comb6 one of the French 
settlers. They retained their "grip" so to say along the Eastern 
Branch of Cooper River until the war of 1860-1865 but that 
cataclysm was as destructive in its results in St. Thomas and on 
the Eastern Branch of Cooper as elsewhere in the low country 
and perhaps from several causes more completely so.